Go Back   Bloggingheads Community > Diavlog comments
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Notices

Diavlog comments Post comments about particular diavlogs here.
(Users cannot create new threads.)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-25-2010, 12:43 PM
Bloggingheads Bloggingheads is offline
BhTV staff
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,936
Default Special Lamestream Edition (Joan Walsh & Dave Weigel)

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-25-2010, 01:09 PM
brucds brucds is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 940
Default Re: Special Lamestream Edition (Joan Walsh & Dave Weigel)

Where did it go ? This diavlog was here a minute ago.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-25-2010, 03:57 PM
Don Zeko Don Zeko is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Exiled to South Jersey
Posts: 2,436
Default Re: Special Lamestream Edition (Joan Walsh & Dave Weigel)

It's back up now but clearly there's some weird stuff going on in the tech department today.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-25-2010, 04:06 PM
Stapler Malone Stapler Malone is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 213
Default Re: Special Lamestream Edition (Joan Walsh & Dave Weigel)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Zeko View Post
It's back up now but clearly there's some weird stuff going on in the tech department today.
luckily I nabbed the MP3 in that brief moment it was up before
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-25-2010, 04:16 PM
Stapler Malone Stapler Malone is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 213
Default BRAIN FREEZE!

This is why one shouldn't drink Slurpees too fast.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-26-2010, 05:27 AM
Baltimoron Baltimoron is offline
Deactivated User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Busan, South Korea (ROK)
Posts: 1,690
Send a message via Skype™ to Baltimoron
Default Re: Special Lamestream Edition (Joan Walsh & Dave Weigel)

Really? I assumed the staff was experimenting with laugh tracks.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-25-2010, 04:05 PM
Stapler Malone Stapler Malone is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 213
Default Re: Special Lamestream Edition (Joan Walsh & Dave Weigel)

Something I don't get is why Democrats enjoy such a huge registration advantage in Kentucky? I'm surmising it's historical, but that's a lot of history ago. The Republicans would seem to have been the natural home for most Kentuckians (?) for a good long time now. One can see why not-so-liberal places like West Virginia are heavily Democratic, for vestigial organized labor reasons, but what's the deal with Kentucky?

A little help?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-26-2010, 05:29 AM
Baltimoron Baltimoron is offline
Deactivated User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Busan, South Korea (ROK)
Posts: 1,690
Send a message via Skype™ to Baltimoron
Default Re: Special Lamestream Edition (Joan Walsh & Dave Weigel)

Hasn't there always been an east-west, mountain-plains divide that predates the Civil War? I recall something about calls for a state of Franklin in the eastern mountains. Add in some gerrymandering, and that might give a minority party control of the state.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-26-2010, 08:59 AM
Stapler Malone Stapler Malone is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 213
Default Re: Special Lamestream Edition (Joan Walsh & Dave Weigel)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baltimoron View Post
Hasn't there always been an east-west, mountain-plains divide that predates the Civil War? I recall something about calls for a state of Franklin in the eastern mountains. Add in some gerrymandering, and that might give a minority party control of the state.
Yeah the Civil War heritage was my first cut guess, but that's a long time ago. It's not like the GOP has a registration advantage throughout the Northeast, or Dems run the show in most slave states. Was Kentucky somehow exempt from the great partisan sort-out of the 70s through 80s? (see: Twain, Mark). My feeling is that gerrymandering probably offers more explanatory mileage in this case.

Last edited by Stapler Malone; 05-26-2010 at 09:05 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-25-2010, 04:07 PM
thprop thprop is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 373
Default Faux Libertarianism

I call myself a classic liberal since too many libertarians are kooks. I have sympathy for Paul's argument on the Civil Rights Act. In a perfect world, we would let individuals discriminate as private individuals - and suffer the consequences. But we live in a world where we had government approved slavery and discrimination. It is not a big limitation on liberty to ban private discrimination.

But if Rand Paul were a true libertarian, he would speak out on gross government intrusions into individual liberty which have enormous consequences for society as a whole. Case in point - the war on drugs. He supports it. Our prisons are full because of this inane policy. Not only with drug users - but all crime. Gang bangers are killing each other to control the drug trade.

The police have responded by resorting to assaults on liberty. Read Radley Balko.

Mexico and Colombia are being destroyed because of American demand for recreational drugs.

We are ruining our cities and entire countries to stop people from voluntarily screwing up their lives. But Rand Paul thinks this is OK - but stopping individuals from discrimination is an unacceptable limitation on liberty.

He is such a coward that he kowtows to the bible thumpers in Kentucky rather than strongly support the separation of church and state.
__________________
Even a blind man knows when the sun is shining, he can feel it.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 05-25-2010, 07:27 PM
cragger cragger is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 632
Default Re: Faux Libertarianism

Your point about Paul's selectivity in applying libertarian ideas is well taken, though you can't really expect much consistency from most folks, let alone politicians such as Dr. Paul. The tencency is for people to decide what they want, and then construct some at least semi-reasonable sounding argument for it after the fact. On one issue its libertarian insistence on personal freedom, on the next its all about states' rights, then a favored interpretation of some sentence found within the Constitution coupled with a claim about original intent, and thus on to some argument about serving a higher moral principle as convienient to support yet another position.

--

On the question of so-called public vs. private discrimination, it doesn't seem obvious that the line is as clear as Paul claims. There is a difference between commercial transactions and spaces and private events in truly private spaces. That is, should one host a small dinner party in one's dining room, the attendees are there as personal guests chosen by the hosts on the basis of personal relationship, or on whatever other basis the host choses. The dinner is in effect a personal gift from the hosts to the guests. Even with the current laws to which Mr. Paul objects, the hosts are free to invite or not invite whomever they want, and serve whatever they want.

The situation is different in a restaurant or store. These enterprises are open to the public at large. Total stragers are welcome to enter, and to engage in whatever transactions they have the cash to support. More than welcome, the enterprise is absolutely dependant on such, the very reason for it to exist. Our society is set to operate on just these transactions in an economic system generally protected and policed by the government.

So I see at least two differences that lead me to question the "government impinging on my freedom by denying me my right to discriminate" argument as extending to commercial spaces. The first is one of impact. Should one decide not to invite members of whatever group to one's home or into one's fellowship the impact on society at large is limited. Should a handful of locals however decide not to, say, sell food or gas to members of that group within a locale, the impact is considerable. The question of whether we collectively desire to take collective action through the agency of government is reasonably tied to the impact of the issue at hand.

Second and probably more central to Paul's position is the question of public vs. private space. A public restaurant is different than a home dining room. The activity that takes place is of a different nature. An argument otherwise needs more than assertion, or genuflection before the altar of private wealth. Such an argument may exist, but I have yet to hear one with any persuasive power.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-25-2010, 07:47 PM
breadcrust breadcrust is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 326
Default Re: Faux Libertarianism

Quote:
Originally Posted by thprop View Post
But if Rand Paul were a true libertarian, he would speak out on gross government intrusions into individual liberty which have enormous consequences for society as a whole. Case in point - the war on drugs. He supports it. Our prisons are full because of this inane policy. Not only with drug users - but all crime. Gang bangers are killing each other to control the drug trade.
Where do you read that he supports the WOD? I only see him talking about walking the war back:

Quote:
Paul 2.0 is more circumspect: Rather than openly advocate drug decriminalization, Rand favors "a more local approach to drugs ... it's a state issue." He sells foreign-policy restraint pragmatically, "oppos[ing] reckless 'nation building' or burdening our troops by making them the world's police force."
This is similar to Ron Paul's take on abortion. Ron Paul (even though he's against abortion) says it should be decided at the state level because it's so contentious.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05-25-2010, 10:18 PM
thprop thprop is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 373
Default Re: Faux Libertarianism

So Paul is a libertarian at the federal level but not at the state level? The federal government should never be allowed to intrude on your liberty but the state government - go for it!!!!! Especially those wacky southern states which want to shove xianity down our throats. In Alabama, a candidate fro governor is attacked for believing in evolution. So the federal government should not enforce separation of church and state but the state government can shove religion into every sphere of life - particularly education (see Texas).

The tea party is not a revolt against big government. It is angry white xians - pissed that there is a black president, desperate to hold onto their government entitlements, and angry that anyone else may get something. Anyone who believes in liberty should stay away from these idiots.
__________________
Even a blind man knows when the sun is shining, he can feel it.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-25-2010, 10:41 PM
Ocean Ocean is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: US Northeast
Posts: 6,784
Default Re: Faux Libertarianism

Quote:
Originally Posted by thprop View Post
So Paul is a libertarian at the federal level but not at the state level? The federal government should never be allowed to intrude on your liberty but the state government - go for it!!!!! Especially those wacky southern states which want to shove xianity down our throats. In Alabama, a candidate fro governor is attacked for believing in evolution. So the federal government should not enforce separation of church and state but the state government can shove religion into every sphere of life - particularly education (see Texas).

The tea party is not a revolt against big government. It is angry white xians - pissed that there is a black president, desperate to hold onto their government entitlements, and angry that anyone else may get something. Anyone who believes in liberty should stay away from these idiots.
What a bad-mouthed truth-teller!

Well, not so bad mouthed...
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-25-2010, 10:49 PM
Whatfur
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Faux Libertarianism

Obama being black was about the only thing I did like about him getting elected. You have an empty pidgeonhole somewhere for me? You actually sound like a larger bigot than those you wish to label.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 05-25-2010, 11:31 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: Faux Libertarianism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whatfur View Post
Obama being black was about the only thing I did like about him getting elected. You have an empty pidgeonhole somewhere for me? You actually sound like a larger bigot than those you wish to label.
This is way too confusing!....a conservative (rcocean) criticizing libertarians for being utopian....a libertarian (thprop) criticizing the tea party for being religious, racist, selfish and white... Dave Weigel from Reason magazine being lauded by Joan Walsh from Salon (she really likes him)....and Whatfur (back from a brief sabbatical where he obviously learned how to deal with libs without any more threats of a coronary) being the most civil person of the bunch.

Ya just gotta love this crazy country!

btw, Weigel's article is pretty good.

Now, few conservatives would go as far as Paul. In an essay just this month on the thought of William F. Buckley, Lee Edwards criticized Buckley's belief "that the federal enforcement of integration was worse than the temporary continuation of segregation."

"As a result of National Review’s above-the-fray philosophizing," wrote Edwards, "and Barry Goldwater’s vote, on constitutional grounds, against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the albatross of racism was hung around the neck of American conservatism and remained there for decades and even to the present."

Last edited by badhatharry; 05-25-2010 at 11:44 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05-26-2010, 05:00 AM
breadcrust breadcrust is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 326
Default Re: Faux Libertarianism

Quote:
Originally Posted by thprop View Post
So Paul is a libertarian at the federal level but not at the state level? The federal government should never be allowed to intrude on your liberty but the state government - go for it!!!!!
The immediate effect would be an increase of freedom. States like California would no longer have to deal with the DEA, which it now does, thanks be to Obama. That sounds like libertarian incrementalism to me.

Quote:
Especially those wacky southern states which want to shove xianity down our throats. In Alabama, a candidate fro governor is attacked for believing in evolution. So the federal government should not enforce separation of church and state but the state government can shove religion into every sphere of life - particularly education (see Texas).
Get used to it. This country is going to become more Christian as a result of Mexican immigration (legal and not) and the higher birth rates of Mexicans and Blacks. Remember prop 8? Keep in mind that Mexicans and Blacks are goodvoters, goiing (D) well over 50% and 90% of the time, but if you like getting excited about them evil White xians, imagine the fun you'll have when the US is majority minority. And just so you're clear, the language is, "Congress (the feds) shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... "

Quote:
The tea party is not a revolt against big government. It is angry white xians - pissed that there is a black president, desperate to hold onto their government entitlements, and angry that anyone else may get something. Anyone who believes in liberty should stay away from these idiots.
The wealthiest Americans are Asians and Jews... especially Jews. Asians and Jews "get something" at a higher rate than goy Whites for all the reasons I've covered in the past. I agree with most statements of tea-partiers (I think Medicare and SS need to be clawed back, though) but I voted for Obama because he was Black. He's probably the last (D) I'll ever vote for.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 05-25-2010, 10:15 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: Faux Libertarianism

Quote:
Originally Posted by thprop View Post
I call myself a classic liberal since too many libertarians are kooks. I have sympathy for Paul's argument on the Civil Rights Act. In a perfect world, we would let individuals discriminate as private individuals - and suffer the consequences. But we live in a world where we had government approved slavery and discrimination. It is not a big limitation on liberty to ban private discrimination.
This is a good way to square the circle with the caveat that once the door is opened the government will inevitably step through it in a very big way. For instance right after the civil rights act we got government mandated desegregation in schools. And it was the government standards which decided what schools were segregated, not the community. Then we got the solution of busing which caused no end of problems, followed by affirmative action....
government acting as social engineers....it just can not resist.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 05-26-2010, 05:05 AM
Alexandrite Alexandrite is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 125
Default Re: Faux Libertarianism

Quote:
Originally Posted by thprop View Post
I call myself a classic liberal since too many libertarians are kooks.
yeah no, it doesn't work like that. Every Libertarian wants to do this because we're all a bunch of individual cats trying to go our own way and all those other guys in the party are crazy.

The best way to just explain it is to say that the Freedom Train follows a power law scale. Such that to find the next Libertarian seat down the train you need to be significantly more ideological. The anarchists are 10 times as 'crazy' as the minarchists and so on up the train. A person in the bottom 25% of the ideological purity might be as far from the mainstream as they are from the anarchists, but they may also be the 1,000,000th most crazy member of the group, putting them in the top 99% of the country for libertarianism.

You're pretty crazy too, and you need people at your back if you want to push forward with your agenda and goals. Calling those people behind you on the train crazy, despite the fact they support you even though they know you have to jump off the freedom train long before they get their way, is not a very nice thing to do.

===
One theory I've seen floated somewhere in this curfuffle and I've been thinking about has been that
There is a difference between communal libertarians - who believe in the right of the society to be free to choose their own way and set their own rules (free from external coercion) and the define their community as however large or small it wishes to be, with non-communal libertarians, who focus more on individualistic and hedonistic based versions. Often they might have similar policy choices on a lot of federal rules and regulations, but it would explain the paleo-libertarian divide as something other then a very old personality / power dispute.

Personally it's just all dumb silliness when there's this in-fighting over petty turf wars and or limited prestige, because the disputes that libertarians have with each other won't ever come up in this country in our lifetime. One can make a very good argument of the necessity of these actions by Conservatives and Progressives against RINO's and DINO's, but Libertarians? The whole thing at times is like the PLA versus Hamas, but with more guns and less relevance. Sure the liberaltarians might be less crazy then paleolibs, but the paleolibs have actual power and connections and are passing libertarian laws while Will Wilkinson has a blog.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 05-26-2010, 05:32 AM
Baltimoron Baltimoron is offline
Deactivated User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Busan, South Korea (ROK)
Posts: 1,690
Send a message via Skype™ to Baltimoron
Default Re: Faux Libertarianism

Some would call that Paul's version of pragmatism. I can't recall who on Meet the Press made that argument last Sunday, though.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 05-25-2010, 09:41 PM
rcocean rcocean is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,077
Default Re: Special Lamestream Edition (Joan Walsh & Dave Weigel)

I'll let the liberals listen to this one, its definitely pitched to them. As a conservative, there's nothing duller** than listening to two liberals trying to decide whether conservatives are evil or stupid or why conservatives don't wise up and become more liberal.

** = except listening to a couple Libertarians debating who's the "true" Libertarian or how the "free Market" can cure cancer, rid of us of poverty, and make sunsets more beautiful.

Last edited by rcocean; 05-25-2010 at 09:44 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 05-26-2010, 05:35 AM
Baltimoron Baltimoron is offline
Deactivated User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Busan, South Korea (ROK)
Posts: 1,690
Send a message via Skype™ to Baltimoron
Default Re: Special Lamestream Edition (Joan Walsh & Dave Weigel)

Dave Weigel is a liberal? In what time zone?

Last edited by Baltimoron; 05-26-2010 at 08:24 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 05-26-2010, 10:00 AM
Don Zeko Don Zeko is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Exiled to South Jersey
Posts: 2,436
Default Re: Special Lamestream Edition (Joan Walsh & Dave Weigel)

He claims to be a libertarian. I guess I'll leave it up to you guys to figure out whether or not he's your very own Mickey Kaus.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 05-25-2010, 09:43 PM
uncle ebeneezer uncle ebeneezer is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,332
Default Re: Mining Is Bad for your Health!!

Side effects of mining accidents!!
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 05-26-2010, 10:55 AM
conncarroll conncarroll is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 105
Default Re: Special Lamestream Edition (Joan Walsh & Dave Weigel)

So David Weigel is both pro-stimulus and pro-TARP? Hoe does he get away with being considered a libertarian again?
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 05-26-2010, 11:08 AM
Don Zeko Don Zeko is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Exiled to South Jersey
Posts: 2,436
Default Re: Special Lamestream Edition (Joan Walsh & Dave Weigel)

Doesn't that make him a) a Keynesian and b) someone that believed the people saying that the economy would come crashing down if we didn't bail out the big financial firms? I know that it's very unusual for Libertarians to hold those views, but they aren't necessarily in conflict with being a civil and cultural libertarian and wanting a small welfare state, which I've always understood to be the bare-bones tenets of libertarianism.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 05-26-2010, 11:18 AM
JoeK
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Special Lamestream Edition (Joan Walsh & Dave Weigel)

Quote:
Originally Posted by conncarroll View Post
So David Weigel is both pro-stimulus and pro-TARP?
He is also pro-New Deal (considers Hoover's failed presidency a proof laissez-faire capitalism doesn't work), pro-Great Society, thinks true limited-government policies were tried out and failed under Reagan and Bush the second, pro-Van Jones (aka. Green Jobs Czar)... I am sure there is more.

Quote:
Originally Posted by conncarroll View Post
Hoe does he get away with being considered a libertarian again?
Um, he likes gay parades?
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 05-26-2010, 03:33 PM
kezboard kezboard is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Great Moravia
Posts: 1,117
Default Rise of the LINO

Are we on the lookout for Not Real Libertarians now? "LINO" sounds even sillier than "FCINO", and we all know how well that worked out for Carly Fiorina.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 05-26-2010, 05:30 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default So much for sanctimony

You know how Dave was going on and on in this diavlog, like he does every time he's on Bh.tv, about how stupid it is for people to report on the antics of Sarah Palin and the scribblings on her Facebook page?

Uh ... never mind!

(His posts -- the first two links in the above -- are actually quite good.)
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 05-27-2010, 01:36 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: So much for sanctimony

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
You know how Dave was going on and on in this diavlog, like he does every time he's on Bh.tv, about how stupid it is for people to report on the antics of Sarah Palin and the scribblings on her Facebook page?

Uh ... never mind!

(His posts -- the first two links in the above -- are actually quite good.)
He has added a third, and also points to Greg Sargent, who in turn points to Ruth Marcus. All worth a look, especially Marcus's.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 05-27-2010, 02:42 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: So much for sanctimony

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
He has added a third, and also points to Greg Sargent, who in turn points to Ruth Marcus. All worth a look, especially Marcus's.
Tbogg notices Dave's second post, also, too.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 05-26-2010, 09:04 PM
geoffrobinson geoffrobinson is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 31
Default Re: Special Lamestream Edition (Joan Walsh & Dave Weigel)

Can we really say that liberals won any Constitutional argument?

I've seen no one point to the text of the Constitution and say "see, this shows we are allowed to create public accomodation requirements on private businesses."
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 05-26-2010, 09:21 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Special Lamestream Edition (Joan Walsh & Dave Weigel)

Quote:
Originally Posted by geoffrobinson View Post
Can we really say that liberals won any Constitutional argument?

I've seen no one point to the text of the Constitution and say "see, this shows we are allowed to create public accomodation requirements on private businesses."
Point to one that clearly prohibits it. As an answer to your question - liberals seem to have won more than they've lost, don't you think? Miranda, Roe v. Wade, the existence of a strong anti-trust framework, and broad interpretations of the First Amendment seem like easy examples.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 05-27-2010, 01:10 PM
popcorn_karate popcorn_karate is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,644
Default Re: Special Lamestream Edition (Joan Walsh & Dave Weigel)

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
Point to one that clearly prohibits it.
bad answer. that is not how the constitution works.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 05-27-2010, 03:59 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Special Lamestream Edition (Joan Walsh & Dave Weigel)

Quote:
Originally Posted by popcorn_karate View Post
bad answer. that is not how the constitution works.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
I'm not sure what you think you're telling me, or in what way yo believe this is related to what I said.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 05-27-2010, 04:47 PM
popcorn_karate popcorn_karate is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,644
Default Re: Special Lamestream Edition (Joan Walsh & Dave Weigel)

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
I'm not sure what you think you're telling me, or in what way yo believe this is related to what I said.
the constitution primarily spells out what powers the government has, not the powers government doesn't have, so claiming that the document does not specifically prohibit something so therefore it is allowed (as you did) is to fundamentally misunderstand the document.

"Some members of Congress argued that a listing of rights of the people was a silly exercise, in that all the listed rights inherently belonged to citizens, and nothing in the Constitution gave the Congress the power to take them away. It was even suggested that the Bill of Rights might reduce liberty by giving force to the argument that all rights not specifically listed could be infringed upon. In part to counter this concern, the Ninth Amendment was included providing that "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people."
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 05-27-2010, 05:02 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Special Lamestream Edition (Joan Walsh & Dave Weigel)

Quote:
Originally Posted by popcorn_karate View Post
the constitution primarily spells out what powers the government has, not the powers government doesn't have, so claiming that the document does not specifically prohibit something so therefore it is allowed (as you did) is to fundamentally misunderstand the document.

"Some members of Congress argued that a listing of rights of the people was a silly exercise, in that all the listed rights inherently belonged to citizens, and nothing in the Constitution gave the Congress the power to take them away. It was even suggested that the Bill of Rights might reduce liberty by giving force to the argument that all rights not specifically listed could be infringed upon. In part to counter this concern, the Ninth Amendment was included providing that "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people."
I see. That's really not my claim. The language is deliberately ambiguous, and clearly delineating the distinction (whether you want to define that in positive or negative terms) is not possible based on a simp0le reading of the text. That's the basis for the tradition of Constitutional interpretation which we've enjoyed for our entire history.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 05-27-2010, 01:19 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Special Lamestream Edition (Joan Walsh & Dave Weigel)

Quote:
Originally Posted by geoffrobinson View Post
I've seen no one point to the text of the Constitution and say "see, this shows we are allowed to create public accomodation requirements on private businesses."
Article I, Section 8, last clause.

Quote:
The Congress shall have power ...

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
Happy?

(Of course not, but still, you've now been pointed.)

==========

Also, accommodation has two Ms. You'd think a guy named Jeff who spells his name with no Js and a silent O would pay attention to things like this.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 05-29-2010, 01:12 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: Special Lamestream Edition (Joan Walsh & Dave Weigel)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
Article I, Section 8, last clause.



Happy?

(Of course not, but still, you've now been pointed.)

==========

Also, accommodation has two Ms. You'd think a guy named Jeff who spells his name with no Js and a silent O would pay attention to things like this.
The part you cited refers to the part you failed to cite:The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Please don't tell me you think 'general welfare' has anything to do with forcing private enterprise to serve anyone.

Thomas Jefferson explained the latter general welfare clause for the United States: “[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.”[7]
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 05-30-2010, 01:27 AM
Starwatcher162536 Starwatcher162536 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,658
Default Re: Special Lamestream Edition (Joan Walsh & Dave Weigel)

When only taking into account the merits of the arguments on constitutional interpretation I agree with limited government conservatives. I however tend to agree with Democrats on a more loose reading of the Constitution when I also take into account the consequences of each philosophy. It's rather clear that if the federal government only practiced powers explicitly given in the constitution we would be a third world country.
__________________
Six Phases of a Project: (1)Enthusiasm (2)Disillusionment (3)Panic (4)Search for the Guilty (5)Punishment of the Innocent (6)Praise and Honors for the Non-Participants
Reply With Quote
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:01 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.